The biotechnology industry has pulled a fast one with regards to the legitimacy of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Straddling both sides of the fence, multinational corporations like Monsanto continually claim that their GM monstrosities are “substantially equivalent” to natural crops when it comes to their safety. And yet at the very same time, this ilk also insists that its products are uniquely different from natural crops when it comes to enforcing its patents, a clearly hypocritical and duplicitous stance that proves the illegitimacy of the entire GMO business model.

On its corporate website, Monsanto clearly expresses its opinion that GMOs are no different from natural crops, and thus do not need to be independently safety tested. This a highly convenient position for the company to take, as it facilitates the unlimited propagation of untested GMOs under the guise that they are indistinguishable from any other crop in the natural world. And this is Monsanto’s official position on GMOs, mind you, and the one that the company stands by in defending its refusal to conduct long-term GMO safety tests on humans.

But if GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs, then how can Monsanto hold enforceable patents on any of its products? After all, GMOs and non-GMOs are exactly the same, right? Not exactly. When it comes to enforcing patents on its “Frankencrops,” Monsanto holds a much different position on the substantial equivalence of its products and natural products. For purposes of generating tens of billions of dollars annually from patent royalties, Monsanto adamantly insists that GMOs are uniquely different from non-GMOs.

GMOs are both the same as and different than natural crops, in the twisted world of Monsanto

So which is it? Are GMOs the same as non-GMOs or are they different? There is no single answer to this question in the eyes of Monsanto, which shifts its answer to accommodate its own corporate interests. But in reality, there can only be one true answer to this question, and science answers it for us quite clearly: GMOs are metabolized by the body differently than natural crops, and almost always carry with them harmful side effects.

It is probably not all that surprising that this glaring disparity has yet to be addressed by the mainstream media. But it just goes to show how deeply corrupted the regulatory bodies of our country and the media outlets that openly abet them have become, allowing Monsanto to play logical gymnastics on the GMO substantial equivalency issue without question. This insanely obvious conspiracy needs to be brought to the world’s attention, but will any other news source besides NaturalNews have the integrity and courage to bring it to light?

“Substantial equivalence is a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific,” explains a 1999 study on the fraud of substantial equivalence that was published in the journal Nature. “It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.”

Also, be sure to check out the comprehensive Earth Open Source report GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops for more information:Â http://earthopensource.org

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.

Stay Informed

The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a financial interest in any company or advertiser referenced. Any action taken as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately the responsibility of the reader. The Daily Sheeple is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.